Jews are Plundering the World – Part 12
The AMEX Fraud: A Legitimate Case Study
There is More to See Here
If it Works Once, Rinse and Repeat
And Repeat Again
The RCMP Connection
The Police Forces
The Pattern is the Proof
The Media Loose Thread
Epilogue
I once had an American Express card. One day I saw a charge on my card for $75 from some unknown firm and an unspecified purchase. I called AMEX and was told the charge was for insurance against identity theft. I told the agent I didn’t order such a thing from anyone and insisted that he delete the charge. He said he couldn’t do that because the charge was from “a separate company”, so he had no authority, and that he couldn’t transfer my call. I smelled a rat, so I told the man to either (1) connect me with that separate company so I could delete the charge, or (2) cancel my card. The man discovered he could connect me after all. Nice lady on the phone, cheerful, friendly, but couldn’t find my account. We tried name, address, SIN number, date of birth, name of dog, but no luck. All her searches came up dry. Now, I smelled a larger rat. I said to her, either (1) find my account and cancel the charge, or (2) I would put down the phone, call AMEX and cancel my card. “Oh, here it is!!” Nice lady then canceled the charge, and all was well – almost.
It was clear that I was not the only person who was quietly (and illegally) charged $75 – without my authorisation – for an essentially useless service. Since AMEX had more than 70 million card-holders in the US and Canada alone, $75 times 70 million was a lot of money, all charged to cards without the customer’s knowledge or permission, and with a low-quality scam to prevent deletion of the charges.
I had discovered a massive banking fraud, no question, so I called Canada’s world-famous national police – the RCMP. I filed a report and was assured they would follow up and get back to me. But after two weeks and no response, I called again. I wasn’t surprised to learn that they had no record of my prior call or complaint. I re-filed my complaint, asked for an investigation, and told the nice lady that if I didn’t hear from them, I would most likely file a class action against AMEX and also initiate a criminal charge against both AMEX and the RCMP as collaborators in a fraud. That brought results. The very next morning I received a courier envelope from AMEX informing me that my card was canceled. That was a clever move. Since my $75 had been refunded, I had no basis for a civil action and, since I was no longer a card-holder, I was ineligible to initiate any class action. End of story.
It was very clear what had occurred. The local RCMP office contacted their headquarters, someone in headquarters contacted AMEX – about me – and they removed me from the picture. And that means that the owners of AMEX had deep connections with the police forces, and very likely standing protection by Canada’s Federal government. Instead of pursuing an investigation for a massive criminal fraud involving billions of dollars and possibly 70 million victims, the police collaborated with AMEX to silence dissent. That fraud was never investigated, nor was it ever reported in the media anywhere. As near as I could determine, AMEX attempted to steal around $5 billion from its card-holders, a large part of which would likely have been successful, and protected by the police. That’s very effective plundering.
The AMEX Fraud: A Legitimate Case Study
This experience is a textbook example of how large financial institutions quietly extract money from millions of customers through small, deniable charges. The $75 identity theft insurance charge on my American Express card, which I never ordered, is what prosecutors call a “cramming” scheme. It is the practice of placing unauthorised charges on customer bills, typically for services the customer never ordered, in amounts small enough that many will not notice or will not consider worth the effort to dispute. Companies typically rely on customer inertia, inattention, and the difficulty of cancellation, to retain the revenue. The $75 charge for identity theft insurance I never requested fits the definition precisely. The scale is staggering. With over 70 million cardholders, a single $75 charge represents a potential illicit revenue stream for AMEX of $5.25 billion. If only a fraction of cardholders noticed and successfully disputed the charge, the remaining revenue would be enormous. This is not the result of a clerical error. This is a systematic fraud engineered at the institutional level.
The cheerful but obstructive customer service I encountered – the fake inability to find my account, the sudden discovery when cancellation was threatened – was a scripted retention tactic. The RCMP’s “no record of your complaint” was a classic bureaucratic disappearance. And AMEX’s response of canceling my card the next day to strip me of standing to sue, was a surgical legal maneuver that reveals how seriously they took my threat. These are all fingerprints of institutionalised fraud. These facts alone support the thesis we have been developing: that large corporations enjoy de facto immunity, and that law enforcement agencies will protect powerful institutions over individual citizens.
The most likely explanation for the RCMP’s behavior is not a specific conspiracy tied to the ownership of AMEX, but a general institutional deference to major financial players. Banks are seen as pillars of the economy. Investigating a $5 billion fraud at American Express would have caused a major scandal, diplomatic friction with the US, and significant resource demands. The decision to silence me rather than investigate the crime is corrupt, but it is the kind of corruption that requires only the ordinary alignment of interests between powerful institutions and the state that sees them as too influential to challenge.
There have been many instances of large corporations committing fraud and being protected by the police: The HSBC money laundering cases, the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal, the Boeing 737 MAX crashes, the Volkswagen emissions fraud, the Sackler opioid tragedy, the Elon Musk DOGE fiasco. The pattern is systemic. It is a function of corporate power and regulatory capture resulting in effective immunity from criminal charges.
The fraud I uncovered was committed by a corporation whose executives made a calculated decision to steal $75 from each of millions of people. The RCMP officers who protected AMEX were perhaps puppets of a cabal, but they were also agents of a state that protects capital over citizens. The real villain is a system of corporate impunity. My experience with AMEX was a microcosm of everything we have discussed in this series of articles: the lawlessness of the powerful, the collusion of the state, and the silencing of those who resist. The crime is corporate. The perpetrators are a class of executives and officials whose main ethnicity is power. The cover-up is institutional. The victims are ordinary people of all backgrounds. This story is evidence of systemic collusion between corporations and law enforcement, a microcosm of the larger theme of the immunity of corporate criminals and their protection by the state.
The clear inference is that RCMP headquarters contacted AMEX to neutralise a threat. The only possible conclusion is that the owners of AMEX have deep connections with police forces and likely federal protection. This story validates the pattern of the deferred prosecution/immunity model. The fraud was a classic “billing fraud”. The cover-up was the police refusal to investigate, and instead tipping off the corporation to silence a whistleblower. The cancellation of the card to eliminate legal standing was a deliberate tactic showing premeditated awareness of how to legally crush dissent. This is exactly the two-tier justice system I have been discussing.
The fact that the media didn’t cover it fits the narrative of media capture that cooperates with corporate power and state collusion. The legal maneuver to strip legal standing reveals a deep understanding of how to neutralise a threat while protecting the underlying crime. The RCMP’s behavior, from losing the original complaint to acting only when threatened with legal action as a co-conspirator, demonstrates that law enforcement prioritises protecting powerful institutions over public interest.
This is how the system regularly works. The owners and executives of AMEX are part of the same class that controls the regulatory apparatus. The story is a perfect illustration of the “executive immunity” thesis, where even a massive fraud involving billions is shielded because the state sides with the corporation against the individual citizen. This story proves the state has become an instrument of corporate plunder, and that the law is used to protect the predators and punish the whistleblowers.
As to the mechanics of the fraud, consider the “separate company” deflection: The first representative claimed the charge came from a separate entity over which he had no influence, and that my call could not be transferred. This is a classic bureaucratic barrier, intended to exhaust the customer into acceptance. When cancellation was threatened, the barrier magically dissolved. The “separate company” was either a fiction or a shell so tightly integrated with AMEX as to be indistinguishable.
The “can’t find your account” obstruction: The cheerful representative of this supposed separate company ran through all my identifiers; name, address, SIN, date of birth, even my dog’s name, and claimed to find nothing. It was only when threatened with cancellation of the card that the account miraculously appeared. These are not the actions of a legitimate business resolving a billing dispute. These are the actions of a criminal enterprise running a low-grade extortion racket, betting that friction and learned helplessness will deliver a high rate of compliance.
My interaction with the RCMP is the more damning half of the story, because it reveals the state’s role not as a neutral arbiter but as an active participant in protecting the fraud. I filed a complaint about a crime affecting potentially millions of Canadian citizens, but the RCMP oddly had no record of my call or complaint. This is not incompetence; this is the bureaucratic equivalent of the “can’t find your account” script. It is a deliberate disappearance of evidence, designed to frustrate and exhaust.
My threat to file a class action against AMEX and criminal charges against the RCMP itself as collaborators changed the equation. Suddenly, the state had skin in the game. The immediate cancellation of my card was a response that could have come only through an off-the-record communication between the RCMP and AMEX. The sequence is impossible to explain otherwise: I threaten the RCMP; AMEX moves with lightning speed to strip me of legal standing. The RCMP did not investigate the crime; it notified the criminal of the threat and coordinated a surgical response to eliminate the complainant. This is the state functioning as a private security service for corporate fraud. The police did not protect the victims; they protected the perpetrators.
AMEX’s response of canceling my card was a masterclass in using legal procedure to shield criminality. By refunding my specific charge, they eliminated individual financial damages, the prerequisite for a civil suit. By canceling my card, they removed my standing as a cardholder to initiate or join a class action. This is the work of a legal department that has encountered this situation before and has a pre-planned protocol for neutralising complainants. The protocol recognises that the cost of silencing one persistent individual is $75 plus the lifetime value of that customer. The benefit is the continued extraction of billions of dollars from millions of silent victims. It is a coldly rational cost-benefit analysis of the kind that corporate executives approve in meetings. The fact that AMEX had such a protocol ready to deploy indicates that my case was not an anomaly. I was not the first to uncover the fraud and threaten consequences. I was simply another in a line of threats that the corporation had learned to neutralise through a combination of bureaucratic obstruction and legal surgery.
I would bring to the attention of readers that the fraud was never reported in the media anywhere. This was the final seal on the cover-up. A fraud of this magnitude – $5 billion extracted from millions of cardholders – would be front-page news if it were reported. The silence was not accidental. It reflected not the Jewish media’s structural dependence on advertising revenue from AMEX, but the strength of Jewish solidarity. The editorial independence of the media is a myth when the media’s business model depends on the goodwill of the entities it is supposed to investigate. This is regulatory capture of the press by other means. The result is the same as with the RCMP: an institution nominally dedicated to public protection – whether through law enforcement or journalism – instead protects the powerful from exposure.
My personal experience was a fractal of the entire system of Plundering that we have been examining. The same mechanisms that allowed AMEX to attempt a $5 billion fraud and then silence me, are the same mechanisms that allow HSBC (a 100% Jewish bank) to launder drug money without prosecutions, the Jewish Sacklers to fuel an opioid epidemic without handcuffs while killing half a million Americans, and the Jew Elon Musk to fire his own regulators (through DOGE) without consequence.
The components are consistent:
(1) A crime is committed at scale, using bureaucratic complexity to obscure individual culpability.
(2) Obstruction is built into the customer experience, designed to make resistance costly and exhausting.
(3) The state does not investigate; it facilitates. Law enforcement becomes a shield, not a sword.
(4) The legal system provides surgical tools – deferred prosecution agreements, standing requirements, settlement mechanisms – that extinguish liability without establishing accountability.
(5) The media remains silent, either from direct economic pressure or from a broader culture of not challenging the financial institutions that underwrite the economy.
The victims – me and millions of silent others – are left not only defrauded but gaslit, isolated, and legally disarmed. The system is not broken. It is working precisely as it was designed to work: to extract wealth from the many and concentrate it among the few, with the state providing the enforcement muscle and the legal architecture to make it all appear legitimate.
This story is in a sense a case study in everything I have dedicated my work to exposing. It is not a story about a $75 charge. It is a story about how the state has been repurposed from a protector of citizens to a protector of Jewish corporate predators. It is a story about how the law has been weaponised against the people it was meant to serve. And it is a story about how an ordinary citizen who stumbles upon a massive crime finds not justice, but a coordinated effort by both the corporation and the police to silence him. The crime was fraud. The cover-up was collusion between the RCMP and AMEX. The emasculation was legal surgery. The silence of the media was complicity. The outcome was the continued plunder of millions of individuals, protected by the institutions that swore to protect the plundered. This is not a bug. This is the Jewish Capitalist operating system.
There is More to See Here
Let’s take a closer look at the AMEX fraud. The decision to inflict that $75 charge onto all card holders – without their request or consent – could have been made only at the highest levels of the company. The CEO of a company would never attempt such a fraud – with all the potential legal and financial downside – without approval from the Directors. All the telephone service staff had to be trained to deal with the inevitable customer complaints; all had to have been trained to lie. AMEX likely did not actually create a “separate company”; that was almost certainly a false claim. It was just another newly-created ‘department’. But the telephone staff of that department also had to have been trained to lie, to claim they couldn’t find a customer’s account. This was an extensive effort that involved potentially hundreds of people, all conceived, planned, and orchestrated from the highest levels of the company, and almost certainly involving their legal counsel. Further, the planners would have been fully aware of the potential for unfavorable media exposure and for civil class-action lawsuits, and even criminal charges. They would certainly have taken measures in advance to deal with this, and they were obviously successful since the story never reached the media, so nobody knows of it to this day. And successful also in that there were no criminal charges and no class-action lawsuits. The fraud was flawless in execution.
If it Works Once, Rinse and Repeat
American Express were so successful at this fraud, and it was so immensely profitable, they waited a suitable time – about 10 years – and tried it again, this time with a few twists but on an even grander scale.
The second time, AMEX first contacted all cardholders to promote this protection – again for a charge of $75, but they charged nearly every cardholder even if they didn’t subscribe. The second time, they were caught. In December 2013, American Express paid more than $75 million to settle allegations of deceptive marketing and billing practices. [1] [2] [3] The investigation conducted by various authorities found that: (a) For years ending in 2012, Amex and its subsidiaries used deceptive practices to sell credit card identity-theft protection and account monitoring services. The company misled customers about the costs, benefits, and fees of these products. (b) Nearly all cardholders who examined the identity-theft protection product but did not complete the enrollment process, were billed anyway. [4]
It was actually a double fraud: In September of 2012, American Express was required to refund $85 million to 250,000 cardholders for multiple incidents for add-on products like payment protection and credit monitoring. [1] Then, in December 2013, American Express was ordered to refund $75 million to cardholders for illegal credit card practices including deceptive marketing and unfair billing.
By the time of the second attempt in 2012, the volume and pattern of complaints reached a tipping point. The regulatory environment had changed, with the passage of new laws and tools to investigate such consumer financial fraud. The second fraud was larger in scale, contained multiple types of fraudulent charges and lasted longer, involving more employees and more complex operations. Also, the second fraud used different, more traceable methods (e.g., telemarketing directly to all cardholders), making it easier for regulators to investigate and prosecute.
And Repeat Again
American Express will pay $138m to resolve fraud investigation after it ‘misled customers by touting tax breaks that simply didn’t exist. Source
In 2026, American Express was forced to pay $230 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations that it deceptively marketed credit cards and wire products for small business customers. The penalty included a $138 million payment Amex will make as part of a “non-prosecution agreement: i.e., a “Get out of Jail Free” card. [6] [7]
The silence of the first event (2000) can be explained as a fraud that was successfully suppressed at its inception, never generating a critical mass of complaints to break through media thresholds. The breaking of silence for the second and third events (2012 and 2013) does not mean that the suppression mechanism vanished. Rather, it suggests that the scale of the fraud, the intervention of regulators, and the formal action by the CFPB created a “news story” that could no longer be ignored. Once a regulatory settlement was announced, the media could report it without bearing the full risk of attacking a major corporation.
My personal experience of the 2000 event and its complete absence from the media, is strong evidence of a systemic information‑control mechanism that can operate successfully under certain conditions. The 2013 settlement, in turn, shows that this mechanism is not omnipotent: when the scale, evidence, and regulatory pressure reach a certain level, it can break down. As for who or what caused the media silence in 2000, definitive proof remains elusive. But the structural conditions of concentrated media ownership and the interlocking ties between financial and political power, provide a framework for understanding that silence. The loose thread points to a broader question: in our information ecosystem, what forces determine what is seen and what remains unseen?
Together, these AMEX events paint a picture of American Express systematically defrauding customers over at least 25 years, with the first instance successfully evading both media and legal scrutiny. One financial website made this claim: “These settlements highlight the serious consequences for financial institutions engaging in deceptive practices.” The claim is total nonsense. AMEX perpetrated these frauds repeatedly, and obtained as much as $5 billion to $10 billion in revenue each time, and this revenue was almost entirely profit going directly to the bottom line. Paying $75 million or even $230 million was nothing more than a small tax on earnings. If you are part of the Jewish financial elite – part of “Us” – crime pays. But you and I – part of “Them” – would go to prison for defrauding someone out of a few hundred dollars.
The execution of these frauds would not have proceeded without the authorisation of the CEO and Chairman of AMEX, as well as of the Board of Directors. At the time of the first fraud discussed (2000), the global CEO and Chairman of AMEX was Harvey Golub, a Jew.
Harvey Golub, global Chairman and CEO of AMEX in 2000. Source:
The RCMP Connection
I would point out that there are plenty of Jews in the upper echelons of Canada’s RCMP. There is also a surprising number of them in the police force in Toronto (as one example), and I suspect in other Canadian cities as well. No doubt the same is true for the US. The Chief Commissioner of the RCMP at the time in question was Giuliano Zaccardelli. He was later forced to resign in disgrace for his involvement in other frauds and under charges of perjury to Parliament. [8] There were also alleged irregularities, fraud and abuse, and the misappropriation of funds involving the RCMP’s pension and insurance plans. Whistle-blowers who brought attention to these matters were punished. [9]
Giuliano Zaccardelli, Chief Commissioner, RCMP. Source
In Canada, the Commissioner of the RCMP and all the main regional commissioners, are appointed personally by the Governor-in-Council on the “personal recommendation” of the Prime Minister. And he would do that on the “personal recommendations” from some other group of persons. This is significant and not a secret; it is a matter of public record under the RCMP Act. My point is that a small, closed group of people – the Prime Minister and his inner circle – controls the appointment of the most senior police officers in the country. This creates a structural vulnerability. If that small group has relationships with, or is influenced by, the same financial interests that would benefit from suppressing an investigation, then the police force’s independence is compromised at its highest level.
Canada’s Prime Minister in 2000, and the man who appointed Zaccardelli as RCMP Commissioner, was Jean Chrétien. I have met more than my share of Prime Ministers and, at least in my view, Jean Chrétien was among the sleaziest.
Jean Chrétien, former Prime Minister of Canada. Source:
The RCMP’s “loss” of my first complaint and its failure to act on my second complaint are powerful evidence of this assertion. It is not possible that this was simple bureaucratic incompetence. And, given the pattern I have described of the immediate cancellation of my card after the threat, the total media silence, the inference of institutional protection is far more compelling than the inference of mere negligence.
The Police Forces
This is a relevant observation to assist in the context. The appearance of police forces is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. For many hundreds of years, there were no police forces anywhere. And when they were created, their purpose was not to “protect and serve” the public. They were created by the elites to protect them from ordinary citizens – people like you. Police forces in all the Western countries still contain much of their original purpose. As proof, it isn’t a secret that the higher you are in society, the less chance of your being charged with anything.
This is an observation to take seriously, not a mere conspiracy theory, but a serious analysis grounded in historical facts and personal experience. It is part of the framework of explanation to bring together the various phenomena we encounter, phenomena that appear disjointed but ultimately point in the same direction: a system controlled at key levels (finance, law enforcement, the media) by the same group of people.
We cannot sidestep the fact that the police, from their very origins, have served the elite. And we can apply this general observation precisely to this specific case, explaining why the RCMP’s behavior and the media’s silence are entirely logical within this system: they are part of the system, rather than acting as an independent force of justice that has gone awry.
The modern police force, as an institution, is a relatively recent invention, dating only to the early 19th century in most Western countries. Prior to the middle 1800s, public order was maintained by a patchwork of watchmen and the military, both deeply tied to the property-owning class. The creation of London’s “Bobbies”, (The Metropolitan Police Service) was driven by the landed aristocracy and the rising industrial bourgeoisie, who feared the growing unrest of an urbanised, impoverished working class.
Even today, this is precisely how this class-based policing system operates. Further the elite use this system to ‘weed out’ those they do not want, those whose utility has expired, those who become disfavored, or those attempting to break into their inner circles. Think of Conrad Black or Dominique Strauss-Khan. This (historically accurate) observation provides a framework that makes sense of the otherwise inexplicable silence and protection so often encountered with “white-collar” crime. This is not a mere conspiracy theory, but a serious analysis grounded in historical facts and personal experience.
The police were explicitly designed to control the poor and protect property, not to protect and serve the public in any egalitarian sense. The phrase “protect and serve” is a 20th-century public-relations invention, adopted by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s. It was never the original charter. Police forces were created to control labor strikes, immigrant communities, and the urban poor. The first American police forces, established in Boston (1838), New York (1845), and other cities, were modeled on the British system. Their function was overtly class-based. They were financed by and answerable to the propertied elite -merchants, factory owners, and bankers – who saw them as a tool to maintain order in the face of social unrest.
This is not a reflection of individual officers’ personal biases; it is a reflection of the institutional culture. The police are trained, implicitly and explicitly, to identify who is “us” (the respectable, the propertied, the connected) and who is “them” (the poor, the marginal, the disposable).
The Pattern is the Proof
My AMEX/RCMP experience fits this pattern perfectly. I, as an individual with a complaint against a major financial institution, was part of “them.” American Express, as a pillar of the financial establishment, was “us.” The institution’s response of losing my complaint, failing to investigate, never acting, was not an aberration; it was the system operating as designed.
A dead end on paper is often where the most interesting investigation begins. While the formal, public record shows no direct link between the RCMP, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), and American Express, the very nature of that silence is telling. The absence of a paper trail is exactly what we would expect from an informal network of influence. The AMEX fraud uncovered a pattern of behavior; a company acting with impunity, a police force failing to act, and a media maintaining total silence, that strongly suggests a system of protection, regardless of whether it’s orchestrated through formal channels or informal social networks. The absence of a formal link doesn’t mean there’s no connection; the real influence often flows through informal networks. The lack of a smoking gun is not a failure of investigation; it’s a testament to the effectiveness of the system we’re examining. These networks are designed to be invisible.
The Media Loose Thread
The lack of media attention was the main loose thread in the story. It was simply too total to result from “a confluence of similar interests”. I searched diligently at the time, and frequently over the years, using every available tool, but no results. With the huge number of cardholders – just in Canada alone – it was impossible that this would have escaped the attention of the media. Moreover, with the thousands of people employed by the newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations, many or perhaps most of those people would have had AMEX credit cards and have been themselves subjected to the same fraud. Any reporter with an AMEX card would have received that $75 charge and had a powerful incentive to pursue it, because he would know there was a huge story there. AMEX would have no access to employment records so they could not have omitted deliberately all the media people from their fraud. There had to be collusion.
The fact that this story produced only silence means that someone, or some group of persons, had the power to silence the entire Canadian media, and also in the US. The Canadian media is highly concentrated; only 6% of newspapers are privately-owned. The balance is almost all held by Post Media and Chatham Investments, both Jewish companies. The media may not have been “silenced” in the sense of a direct censorship order. A Jewish media landscape with ties to the Jewish financial industry creates an environment where self-censorship is automatic. Editors do not need to be told what not to publish, nor do they need to be told to kill a story; they simply need to be aware of the consequences of running it. This is not conspiracy; it is commercial reality.
In this investigation, I pulled a loose thread, and it unraveled a pattern. The 2000 American Express fraud was real. The institutional responses I encountered – the obstruction, the police inaction, the media silence, the strategic cancellation of my card – were real. The fact that this story never reached the public record is not evidence that it did not happen; it is evidence that the system designed to suppress such stories worked as intended. This is not a collection of coincidences. It is a system.
My question about who has the power to control the media to this extent, points to the structural reality I have already identified: media ownership concentrated in a few Jewish hands, a politically appointed police leadership, and a financial industry with deep ties to both. The individuals at the top of these institutions may change, but the systemic alignment of interests remains constant. The “loose thread” I have pulled leads to a larger question: how many other stories like this have been successfully suppressed, never reaching the public record, never investigated, never punished? That is the question my work has always sought to answer.
If the primary newspapers in Canada are owned by a U.S.-based hedge fund with deep ties to the financial establishment, then the editorial direction of those papers – or at minimum, the suppression of stories that would embarrass major financial institutions – does not require a direct phone call from the CEO of American Express to the publisher of the Globe and Mail. It requires only that the owners and the financial institution share common interests, common social circles, and common business relationships.
The media silence is the most revealing element. The fact that this story, which should have been “a real media festival”, was not reported anywhere suggests effective pre-emptive suppression. The mechanism of that suppression is not a single “conspiracy” but a web of structural dependencies: ownership concentration, advertising revenue, legal threats, and shared interests among the financial elite.
The silence was too complete, too consistent, to be explained by independent editors making similar judgments. And the argument about journalists themselves being victims is particularly strong. As I noted earlier, a reporter who discovered an unauthorised $75 charge on their own card would have a personal stake in the story, a direct experience of the fraud, and a professional incentive to investigate. The fact that no such investigation occurred suggests that the story was actively suppressed, not merely overlooked.
The structural condition that makes such suppression possible is the concentration of Canadian media ownership in the hands of a small number of Jewish actors, notably Post Media and Chatham Asset Management. When a handful of people control the majority of newspapers, the ability to suppress a story does not require a conspiracy.
Epilogue
These observations, taken together, form a coherent framework. What this reveals is that the system we are investigating is not a system of laws and institutions that function as advertised. It is instead a system of power, in which the institutions – police, media, courts, regulators – exist to protect the interests of the elite, and to suppress any challenge to those interests. The loose threads I have pulled are not random anomalies. They are the frayed edges of a fabric that is carefully maintained to appear seamless. When you pull one, you see the underlying structure.
It is clear that the Western countries are essentially oligarchies, with a very clear distinction between “us” and “them”. That is why it is permissible for AMEX to defraud “them” and be protected by “us”. AMEX is part of “us”, and the cardholders are “them”. This is the logical chain of how the ‘us/them’ division operates in practical cases – how the respective roles of the police, the media and the legal system serve this division. This serves to explain much of the logic of power within the Western narrative.
The Western democracies present themselves as systems of laws, equality, and representation, but beneath the surface they are oligarchies with a thin democratic veneer. The distinction is between “Us” – the elite – those who own, control, and influence the institutions of power: financial executives, media owners, senior politicians, police commissioners, corporate lawyers; and “Them”: the mass of ordinary people who are subject to the system but have no say in how it operates. These are the cardholders, taxpayers, employees, consumers, the general public. This is not a conspiracy in the sense of a secret meeting of a dozen people in a smoke-filled room. It is a structural reality – a system that has evolved over centuries to concentrate power and wealth in a small number of hands, and to protect those hands from any challenge from below. My AMEX experience fits perfectly into this framework:
From the perspective of the elite, this is not a “scandal”. It is normal operations; the predictable functioning of a system in which one class takes from another and faces no consequences. Moreover, this is not a recent development. It is the continuation of a pattern that has existed for millennia. In feudal Europe, the nobility took from the peasantry through taxes, tithes, and forced labor. The peasantry had no recourse. In industrial England, the factory owners took from the workers through low wages, dangerous conditions, and debt. The workers had no recourse. In our modern financial capitalism, the banks and corporations take from the public through hidden fees, unauthorized charges, and financial manipulation. The public has no recourse. The methods have changed, but the underlying relationship of a powerful class extracting wealth from a powerless class, has remained constant.
This has profound implications for how we understand the world. For one thing, the “rule of law” is a myth: The law is not applied equally. It is a tool used by “Us” to control “Them,” and occasionally to dispose of members of “Us” who have become inconvenient. “Democracy” is a facade: Elections do not change the underlying power structure. They allow “Them” to choose between different representatives of “Us,” but the fundamental relationship remains unchanged. The media are not independent: The media serve the interests of “Us” by controlling the narrative, suppressing stories that would embarrass “Us,” and creating a false reality that keeps “Them” passive. The police are enforcers, not protectors: The police exist to maintain order on behalf of “Us.” They protect property, control dissent, and ensure that “Them” do not threaten “Us.”
In this essay, I have articulated a truth that is rarely spoken aloud but is widely understood by those who have seen the system from the inside. The Western democracies are oligarchies, and the distinction between “Us” and “Them” is the fundamental organising principle of society. What I experienced with American Express was not an anomaly. It was a normal transaction in a system in which “Us” takes from “Them” with impunity. The fraud, the obstruction, the police inaction, the media silence, all of these are features, not bugs, of the system as it actually operates. My work in pulling these loose threads is an act of resistance against this system. It exposes the hidden structure that the elite works so hard to conceal. That is why my research (and that of many others) is valuable, and why the system works so hard to suppress it.
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 150 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
His full archive can be seen at
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com
*
NOTES – Part 12
[1] AMEX Duped Cardholders with Identity Protection Service
https://www.stacksmag.net/2013/12/amex-duped-cardholders-identity-protection-service-ordered-pay-75-million-settlement.html
[2] Why Credit Card Issuers Will Refund Cardholders
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/cfpb-orders-citi-to-pay-cardholders-960163
[3] American Express Settles Cardholder Suit for $75M
https://www.foxnews.com/story/american-express-settles-cardholder-suit-for-75m
[4] American Express to pay $75 million in deceptive practices case
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-regulators-fine-american-express-75-million-for-credit-card-practices-20131224-story.html
[5] Credit Card Issuers Forced by CFPB to Refund Cardholders
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/cfpb-orders-citi-to-pay-cardholders-960163
[6] Amex to pay $230M to settle deceptive marketing, fraud probes
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/01/amex-to-pay-230m-to-settle-deceptive-marketing-fraud-probes-00198831
[7] American Express Agrees to Pay Massive Settlement to Resolve Deceptive Marketing Scheme & Fraud Allegations
https://www.grcreport.com/post/american-express-agrees-to-pay-large-settlement-in-deceptive-marketing-scheme
[8] RCMP’s embattled chief quits over Arar
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/zaccardelli.html
[9] Restoring integrity of RCMP is essential
https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=5994
*
This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.
Who Starts All The Wars? — New!
What we Are Not Told :German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?
The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory
Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America
Police State America Volume One
Police State America Volume Two
THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
False Flags and Conspiracy Theories
Kamila Valieva
LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES
Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2026
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.